The U.S. Supreme Court case Permutit Co. v. Graver Corporation in 1931 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over water softening technology. The plaintiff, Permutit Company, alleged that Graver Corporation had infringed on their patented process of regenerating zeolite (a mineral used for water softening) with brine solution while it was still in the container or 'exchange unit'. However, the defendant argued that they were using an old method known to those skilled in this field and thus did not infringe upon any patents held by Permutit Company. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Permutit Company stating that their patent only covered a specific sequence of steps involving removal of zeolite from its container before regeneration - something which Graver Corporation did not do as part of their process. Therefore, no infringement took place according to the court's interpretation of what constituted as new invention under patent law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Permutit Co. v. Graver Corporation, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of patent law and its application to this case. The dissent believed that the original patent held by Permutit Co., which involved a process for softening hard water, should not have been invalidated due to lack of novelty or obviousness as determined by the majority. They contended that there were significant differences between prior art and what was claimed in Permutit's patent, making it unique enough to warrant protection under U.S. Patent Law. Furthermore, they disagreed with how lower courts handled evidence related to alleged infringement by Graver Corporation; arguing more weight should've been given towards expert testimony supporting claims of infringement rather than dismissing them based on perceived similarities with existing processes or technologies.